UK Lords Pass Digital Economy Bill, Now Look To Rush It Through Commons

from the as-expected dept

As was widely predicted, it looks like the UK Lords have passed the controversial Digital Economy Bill, a piece of legislation written by the entertainment industry against consumer interests, to try to prop up an obsolete business model. Now they're planning to rush it through the Commons with little debate or chance to stop an incredibly dangerous bill -- unless people start making some noise about how this bill is being rushed through, and the lack of any real public consultation or debate.

Continuing the boycott!

I had a very unfriendly reality check over the weekend, one which reminded me why file sharing is a justified means of civil disobedience. It boggles my mind just how extremely anti-consumer and unfair the content industry is, all in the name of greed. Thankfully it strengthened my resolve to continue boycotting them, something I had begun to waver on over the past few weeks. Thanks for the reminder, fools! ;-)

To be fair tho - because the "Lords" are now awarded as honoury positions, and since they are non-electable and therefore, not desirable as position of ambitious power driven politicians, the Lords actually represents more balanced and sensible view points than the Common's, but they aren't controlled by party political agenda.

Re:

Gotta wonder how that whole revolution thing's been working out in the USA. Seems like you just traded in 'ancesters owned a lot of land or fought well in wars' and the HoS's favour for the ability to screw people over, lie through one's teeth, look good on tv, and give and take bribes as a prerequisite for assuming exactly the same role...

Of course, NZ conveniently just did away with the whole concept of an upper house all together. In theory the governor does most of the same job. in practice they say a few formal lines around election time

"As usually happens with parties on yachts, as time goes by, further details become revealed, as now in the aside news coverage of Tory leader David Cameron being flown out to chat to Media Oligarch Rupert Murdoch on another yacht in September by Murdoch’s son in law, and then flown to Turkey to attend a birthday Bash with the Murdoch’s, Mandelson, and Deripaska it seems that the world really couldn’t’ get any smaller."

"British science gave the world Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking. They figured out how we became human and the shape of the universe. Now Peter Mandelson wants to bend that great tradition to serve the yacht-owning overclass he adores. If he succeeds, we may never know the magnitude of our loss."

Re:

"But firms such as British Telecom, Google and Facebook say that would be unfair and illegal file-sharers should be fined instead of cut off."

I think they know how many people are actually file sharing and are scared for their bottom lines. If 20% of their customers are cut off that would be a major hit to their profitability. But that wont happen because like in other places (sweden, etc) people will switch to VPN, fileLockers, etc. Good luck to the brits on this

Re: Re:

+1

Representational democracy failed, it's dead and if it weren't for all of the wedge issues everyone would have noticed this several years ago. The president said "I've had to make a lot of unpopular decisions to save our economy" in a speech to the import-export bank (I've never heard of it either..). That's it in a nut shell, we elect monarchies and we have little choice in which one we choose. Theres little difference really, the choice is an illusion.

Perhaps it will pass both Houses in the UK and become law in the UK, thus proping up business models you opine are unsustainable. However, I am not at all clear about how its passage would impact, if at all, startups who choose to embrace the business models you promote. So long as these startups create their own original material such that copyright law would have no applicability to what they are pursuing, how would even "draconian" provisions applicable to copyright infringers detract from the pursuit of business by companies operating outside the boundaries/reach of copyright law?

Re:

Perhaps it will pass both Houses in the UK and become law in the UK, thus proping up business models you opine are unsustainable. However, I am not at all clear about how its passage would impact, if at all, startups who choose to embrace the business models you promote. So long as these startups create their own original material such that copyright law would have no applicability to what they are pursuing, how would even "draconian" provisions applicable to copyright infringers detract from the pursuit of business by companies operating outside the boundaries/reach of copyright law?

The laws have the potential to make things like YouTube and other platforms that are useful for content creators illegal.

Do you not think that's a problem?

The law has the potential to kick people offline based on false accusations of copyright infringement?

Do you not think that's a problem?

You really amaze me sometimes how little respect you have for basic human dignity and civil rights. For someone who says they're a lawyer, you seem to always side with the biggest corporate interests against individual rights. I wonder why.

Re: Re:

In response to your two questions, I am not familiar with the provisions of the UK bill under consideration. Hence, I cannot provide a definitive answer. However, given that the bill is purportedly directed to copyright law in general, I believe my general observation still holds true. Create your own original work and copyright law will not apply.

As for your final paragraph, it unfortunately reflects a predisposition to question the motives of anyone who may offer a comment with which you may happen to disagree. I urge you to consider the possiblity that comments may be proferred that are not intended in the slightest to place you or the site in a negative light.

Re: Re: Re:

In response to your two questions, I am not familiar with the provisions of the UK bill under consideration. Hence, I cannot provide a definitive answer. However, given that the bill is purportedly directed to copyright law in general, I believe my general observation still holds true. Create your own original work and copyright law will not apply.

So you are speaking PURPOSELY from a position of ignorance?

You do realize how ironic that is given that you repeatedly bash me personally for (you claim, often falsely) doing the same.

Stunning.

As for your final paragraph, it unfortunately reflects a predisposition to question the motives of anyone who may offer a comment with which you may happen to disagree.

No, sir. Just you. Your condescending language choices make it obvious who you are, and it's difficult to take you seriously. But since I know your previous statements in favor of big companies and against basic human and civil rights I see no reason not to call you out on them.